Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JACINTO LANTANO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183100 2012-11-28	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ABRENCILLO BERSAMIN, J.
Firstly, the findings of the RTC and the CA deserve respect mainly because the RTC as the trial court was in the best position to observe the demeanor and conduct of AAA when she incriminated the accused by her recollection of the incident in court. The personal observation of AAA's conduct and demeanor enabled the trial judge to discern whether she was telling the truth or inventing it.[8] The trial judge's evaluation, which the CA affirmed, now binds the Court, leaving to the accused the burden to bring to the Court's attention facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted by the lower courts but would materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly considered.[9] Alas, the accused made no showing that the RTC, in the first instance, and the CA, on review, ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted any facts or circumstances supportive of or crucial to his defense.[10]
	G .R No. 182230 2012-09-19	PEOPLE v. EDGARDD LUPAC Y FLORES BERSAMIN, J.
Firstly, both the RTC and the CA considered AAA as a credible witness. We accord great weight to their assessment of the credibility of AAA as a witness as well as of her version. Verily, the personal observation of AAA's conduct and demeanor enabled the trial judge to discern if she was telling the truth or inventing it.[12] The trial judge's evaluation, which the CA affirmed, now binds the Court, leaving to the accused the burden to bring to our attention facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted but would materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly considered.[13] Alas, the accused made no showing that the RTC, in the first instance, and the CA, on review, had ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted facts or circumstances supportive of or crucial to his defense.[14]
	GR No. 181491 2012-07-30	PEOPLE v. HENRY ARCILLAS BERSAMIN, J.
AAA rendered a complete and credible narration of her ordeal at the hands of the accused, whom she positively identified in court. Her testimony was corroborated on material points by BBB and her own sister as well as by the medico-legal evidence adduced. With both the RTC and the CA considering AAA as a credible witness whose testimony should be believed, we accord great weight to their assessment. The trial judge was placed in the unique position to discern whether she was telling the truth or inventing it after having personally observed AAA's conduct and demeanor as a witness.[8] The trial judge's evaluation, affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court, and cannot be disturbed, least of all rejected in its entirety, unless Arcillas successfully showed facts or circumstances of weight that the RTC and the CA might have overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted that, if duly considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case differently.[9] Alas, he did not make that showing here.
	GR No. 185844 2011-11-23	PEOPLE v. ARNEL MANJARES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We note that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals have found and considered the victim's testimony as credible and worthy of belief. We have previously held that when the issue focuses on the credibility of the witnesses or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter's demeanor, conduct, and attitude especially during the cross-examination unless cogent reasons dictate otherwise.[45] Moreover, it is an established rule that findings of fact of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless some facts or circumstances of weight have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted which would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case.[46] In the case at bar, we see no compelling reason to veer away from this rule.
	GR No. 176631 2011-02-02	PEOPLE v. AVELINO FELAN BERSAMIN, J.
It is notable that the RTC and the CA both found and considered AAA as a credible witness whose testimony should be believed. We accord great weight to the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of AAA and of her testimony because the trial judge, having personally observed AAA's conduct and demeanor as a witness, was thereby enabled to discern if she was telling or inventing the truth.[9] The trial judge's evaluation, when affirmed by the CA, is binding on the Court, and it becomes the burden of the accused to project to us facts or circumstances of weight that were overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted which, when duly considered, would materially affect the disposition of the case differently.[10] We do not vary from this rule now, however, considering that the accused did not make any showing that the RTC, in the first instance, and the CA, on review, ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted facts or circumstances supportive of or crucial to his defense.
	GR No. 171348 2008-11-26	PEOPLE v. LARRY ERGUIZA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court is not unmindful of the rule that the exact date of the commission of the crime of rape is extraneous to and is not an element of the offense, such that any inconsistency or discrepancy as to the same is irrelevant and is not to be taken as a ground for acquittal.[82] Such, however, finds no application to the case at bar. AAA and Joy may differ in their testimonies as to the time they were at the mango orchard, but there could be no mistake as to the actual day when AAA was supposed to have been raped; it was the day when AAA's shorts got hooked to the fence at the mango orchard.
	GR No. 167383 2008-09-22	PEOPLE v. AMADEO TINSAY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With regard to appellant's question on the propriety of the award for civil indemnity, the CA has corrected the trial court's error by modifying the RTC decision's monetary award. The Court finds proper, for being in accord with the latest jurisprudence, the CA's award of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, which is mandatory upon establishing the fact of rape; P75,000.00 as moral damages, even without need of proof, since it is assumed that the victim has suffered moral injuries; and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages to curb incidences of incestuous rape and to set an example for the public good.[31]